Question to keep in mind: "What would Karl Rove do?"

09/21/2012

This blog entry itself is a list of links. However, near the bottom of the comments is a statement of mine, followed by typical anti-Truther incompetence, by a poster labeled "im1dc":

Me: "How about the Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) indicating that UA175 took off at 8:23 and UA93 took off at 8:28? Times reported to BTS by United Airlines itself."

im1dc: "Meaningless insignificant pablum for conspiracy nuts."

It's not that he disputes the content of my post. It's that he doesn't read it with literate comprehension.

09/08/2012

I don't think I need comment further. It doesn't matter what President Obama and the other speakers say, if their acts don't match their words.

The question is still relavent: What would Karl Rove do?

If we reelect President Obama, we get four more years of torturing whistleblowers, upper-class immunity for all crimes, aggressive war, etc. Four more years of Bush-Administration policies. Bush term four.

If we elect Mitt Romney, we get worse in all likelihood.

There are alternate candidates: Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. Consider voting for one of those.

09/05/2012

Dean Baker has the right idea. Is the house better off than before it caught fire? If not, blame the firefighters.

On the other hand, yes, the house is better off than it was in the middle of its blaze. And that's where we were when Obama took office. The blaze was the Bush Administration's fault.

On the third hand, President Obama could have done a whole lot more if he weren't Republican in disguise, giving them pretty much what they wanted, refusing to fight them, poking his original base (that elected him) in the eye.

Dean Baker has the right idea. Is the house better off than before it caught fire? If not, blame the firefighters.

On the other hand, yes, the house is better off than it was in the middle of its blaze. And that's where we were when Obama took office. The blaze was the Bush Administration's fault.

On the third hand, President Obama could have done a whole lot more if he weren't Republican in disguise, giving them pretty much what they wanted, refusing to fight them, poking his original base (that elected him) in the eye.

06/22/2012

Suppose I get into a conflict with a police officer, and he calls me a "motherfucker."

Am I allowed in court to testify straight out that the officer called me a motherfucker? And when the officer testifies, is the cross-examining attorney allowed to directly ask the officer if he called me a motherfucker.

If not, what procedure is there to guarrantee that the facts get on the record? Rules against profanity must not be allowed to keep evidence of profanity out of court.

06/17/2012

This is an old computer joke. I've seen it several places. A computer salesman accosts a potential customer and tells about his computer that has all knowledge, or can figure out everything. The customer gives it a trial. "Where is my father."

Computer: This man's father is lying on a beach in Miami, Florida.

Customer: Hah! This computer's worthless. My father's been dead five years.

Salesman: You have to be precise in the question you ask. [To computer] This man, where is his mother's husband?

Computer: His mother's husband has been dead five years.

Salesman: See?

Computer (continuing): His father is on a beach in Miami.

Okay, here's one version of the joke, I came up with several years ago, in the context of criminal procedure:

Customer: Where is my wife's killer?

Computer: Your wife's killer is in Lubbock hacking a woman to death at this moment.

06/03/2012

We have the following facts regarding UA175, that ostensibly hit the South Tower: the plane hitting the South Tower took off at 8:14. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics reports that UA175 took off at 8:23. Both specifically refer to the Wheels-Off Time, the time the wheels leave the runway.

There is a saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Which of the following statements is the extraordinary claim? (Is there a third option? See the bottom of this post.)

United Airlines reported an erroneous number to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

UA175 actually took off at 8:23. The aircraft that took off at 8:14 and flew into the South Tower was an imposter.

If you've answered that question, see if the following facts change your answer:

United Airlines (in 2001) was a huge airline, competent in all sorts of complex activities. Reporting the required data to the BTS is a routine activity, naturally automated through computer programming, and the humans don't intervene in the numbers. UA175, until being hijacked was just an ordinary commercial flight transmitting data in the ordinary way, and its data would be processed in an ordinary way.

Hijack exercises by our military took place on 9/11, involving actual flying aircraft (fakers) posing as hijacked aircraft. The military may have had the authority to take over a flight's call sign and demand that the flight use an alternative call sign for communication with Air Traffic Control. (There were also references to non-existant flights: UA177, DAL89, UA1898, DAL1898. The real Delta flight that was diverted to Cleveland was DAL1989.)

Do these change your answer? In my view, United reporting an erroneous takeoff time is the extraordinary claim, given these facts.

Is there a third option? Maybe a hacker broke into the system and altered the wheels-off time, for whatever reason. I would hope that old backups would expose the change.

05/22/2012

Applying austerity everywhere to fix the economy and the debt problem of the countries is like running an air-conditioner without some place (such as outside) to dump the hot air. It never works. The hot air expelled from an air-conditioner contains more heat than the cold air lost.

05/21/2012

One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong. Can you tell me which thing is not like the others, Before I finish my song?

-- Sesame Street

In the 9/11 attacks, UA175 hit the WTC South Tower, AA11 hit the North Tower, and AA77 hit the Pentagon.

In contrast with the twin towers, the Pentagon looks like a pancake from the air. It's no taller than the tail section of AA77. AA77 took a very roundabout way of targetting the Pentagon: skimming the ground at three times landing speed, without inadvertently touching the ground, then hitting the Pentagon precisely where it would do the least damage -- a spot still under construction, and the wing built to best withstand such an attack.

The twin tower destruction was the spectacular attack, whereas the hit on the Pentagon was the self-injury designed to make the criminal look like a victim.